Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
I've always said that if you're willing to lie about the inconsequential, you're going to lie when it matters.

I prefer to lie when it can't be morally avoided, and otherwise stick to the truth.
Click to expand...

"Inconsequential things" is a synonym for "small things" so we're saying the same thing.

Most people don't lie about the small things unless it's a "white lie" and prefer to stick to the truth.
 
The Big Dog said:
ohhh, bummer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rau0A5w3OVI&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...

Well, yes. That does corroborate what she's said all along, and, as much as possible, was supported by the DNA evidence. I can see how you would be bummed by that.

A. She repeating the stories she heard from her parents.
B. She's claiming that her family believes itself is descended from one or two tribes
C. She's not claiming membership in either tribe.

D. The DNA testing confirmed that she does have some Native American ancestry.

Solid Case!
 
Meadmaker said:
So, Elizabeth Warren is not an Indian? And never claimed to be an Indian?

Which would mean that since Trump said he would pay a million to charity if the test showed she was an Indian, he doesn't have to pay up, right? I mean, legally, he doesn't have to anyway, but he isn't welching on his promise, because the test didn't show she was an Indian. It showed she had an Indian ancestor, probably, which is the same as being a small part Indian. I'm sure you will hasten to correct anyone who tries to say that Trump is welching.



It's funny to watch both sides go at it and talk past each other. I wasn't aware that The Big Dog was so sensitive about race issues. I'm sure next time a thread comes up where someone is obviously behaving in a racist manner, he'll jump right on that and condemn it.
Click to expand...

Let me agree. Trump's ridiculous bet is, as usual, mighty ambiguous. In context, it only makes sense to think that he was challenging her to produce evidence of ancestry, since that's all she's claimed, but it's Trump, and he speaks very broadly and can weasel out of the bet without breaking a sweat.

Because he's an incoherent pussy.
 
crescent said:
Well, yes. That does corroborate what she's said all along, and, as much as possible, was supported by the DNA evidence. I can see how you would be bummed by that.

A. She repeating the stories she heard from her parents.
B. She's claiming that her family believes itself is descended from one or two tribes
C. She's not claiming membership in either tribe.

D. The DNA testing confirmed that she does have some Native American ancestry.

Solid Case!
Click to expand...

Oh man, she is Cherokee and Delaware! Oh noes, I was told that she did not make that claim right here in this thread. And I was told that her being maybe as little as 1/1024th Peruvian was totally consistent with her story that her parents eloped because her grandparents were racist **************

Cool story, Betsy. Seems like she got most of her “heritage” from her racist grandparents.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
That's because the DNA database isn't that specific. It's also not important. What if it turned out to be a Sioux or Blackfoot or some other Native tribe. Would that make her a liar or just someone mistaken about family lore?

I've often told a story that my father was on Omaha Beach on D-Day and was stranded on the beach that hellish morning. I said my father was on a Higgins boat that was shot up.

A few years ago, I found out that cannot be true as no US Navy personnel piloted those boats. They were manned by British navy. I had been thinking either my memory was wrong or worse that my Dad lied to me 40 years ago.

I managed to get his service records . It turns out he was on an LST a Landing Ship Tank Carrier that hit a mine, not a Higgins boat.

So specifically I was mistaken. Does that make me a liar?
Click to expand...

I did not say that if she wasn't a Cherokee, then she's a liar. I said that the evidence at hand doesn't prove what she says is true, but it is consistent with what she says.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh man, she is Cherokee and Delaware! Oh noes, I was told that she did not make that claim right here in this thread. And I was told that her being maybe as little as 1/1024th Peruvian was totally consistent with her story that her parents eloped because her grandparents were racist **************

Cool story, Betsy. Seems like she got most of her “heritage” from her racist grandparents.
Click to expand...

That she is as much as 1/64 Native American, from any tribe, is consistent with her claim, but doesn't establish it.

Once again, how is she being racist?
 
Vixen said:
From going to, 'My Mom was a Native American and had to elope because of the racist parents-in-law', 'Grandpa had high cheekbones' and ticking Harvard boxes as an ethnic minority needing the benefit of positive discrimination, she changed her story to some vague sixth to tenth generation individual of whom no-one knows the name or tribe, or indeed whether or not he or she is actually Hispanic.


Surprise, surprise! Lo and behold! That's what the DNA test came back with.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you finally admit the plural is on the noun and not "law". Progress.

What evidence do you have that she actually changed any part of her story?

Warren never said "My Mom was a Native American". She said her mother was partially Native American.

Warren was not "needing the benefit of positive discrimination" to get hired at Harvard as they have made abundantly clear.

Warren never claimed it was a 'sixth to tenth generation' ancestor; that was what Dr. Bustamente found.

Why the need to lie, Vixen?
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
anyone notice the major problem with this post (yeah, there are lots, but I said major) Lets drill down:

"you have the hilarious prospect of TBD giving a rat's ass about what NA say about anything!" fallacious, of course; false? Of course.

But the real problem is that we have copious, unrebutted evidence that the warren aficionados really don't give a rat's ass "about what NA say about" Warren's stupid and racist stunt. Hell i repeatedly linked to articles about why Warren's stunt was stupid and racist, but rather than address those articles, posters attack me, because of course they do.
Click to expand...

Haw haw haw! Big Dog makeum joke?

Where were your pearls during the discussions of NA organizations flaying the major sports leagues for their racist team names? At the Keystone pipeline lefty riots? Were you there supporting NA concerns.

Alternately is this Machiavellian performance art. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. You'll support socialists if they're against Hillary, as we've all seen. You'll just as readily support minority rights groups as long as they're doing something to embarrass a Democrat.

The hypocrisy is par for the course.
 
Meadmaker said:
Actually, I think your post is the essence of this non-issue, which isn't actually a non-issue at all.

The real issue that is hiding behind the non-issue of Elizabeth Warren's ancestry is that your friend's son shouldn't have to check any box at all, and checking one box or another should have no effect on his life. Indeed, it would be better if those boxes weren't even there.

Unfortunately, in some cases, there are legitimate reasons for needing those boxes, but there is considerable debate about whether they ought to exist, and the fact that an obvious paleface checks the "Native American" box that is there on the form is a good illustration of one (but only one) side of the argument. In other words, the people who think those boxes ought to be completely gone from those forms can use this anecdote to support their case, and they will be correct that it shows something that is a negative consequence of having the box.

So, Elizabeth Warren's ancestry really is a non-issue, but it illustrates a real problem in America that is a real issue.
Click to expand...

I agree and maybe disagree to a point. Those boxes aren't necessarily used to make specific decisions in hiring, but to inform the country about ethnicity issues in general.

Without them, how can we understand if we are making progress or not in achieving a color-blind society?

I grew up during the fight for Civil Rights in the 60s. We've come a long way. But I worked in high tech sales for 30 years. Working with hundreds of other sales reps as well as that many software and hardware engineers as well as high tech customers. And I can remember only a single African American working in one of those jobs. Something is wrong. I'm not saying that the employers didn't hire because of race, just that there were almost no non-caucasian or non-asians.

Either we're not teaching them well or we're discriminating in our hiring practices.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
I did not say that if she wasn't a Cherokee, then she's a liar. I said that the evidence at hand doesn't prove what she says is true, but it is consistent with what she says.
Click to expand...

Yes. But given this is a minor claim, shouldn't we give her the benefit of the doubt and move on? David Hume said that ordinary claims require little or no evidence. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If I told you I had eggs this morning for breakfast, you would almost certainly nod and not question that claim or ask for me to prove it. Warren's heritage is that mundane. The ONLY reason we are talking about it is because her political opponents have characterized her as a liar over this mundane claim.
 
theprestige said:
Perhaps it's time to stop giving Warren grief over her little white lie, and start asking Harvard why on earth they thought it was a good idea to tout Warren as a "person of color".
Click to expand...

And that should rate about eleven lines in some Op Ed piece. Well-meaning or evil-doing minions went around during that period glossying up organizations' demographics for public relations purposes. Universities got nothing in the way of grant money or advantages from doing so but we able to claim the mantle of being, ironically, white knights.

There were many actual cases of organizations and businesses scamming the preferences for government contracts by creating minority shareholders who didn't exist. Unless someone can show that Warren (or Harvard) applied for special treatment then it's nothing other than public relations. I remember our marketing manager once going from desk-to-desk, covering 120 staff, to come up with "Our staff speaks forty-seven languages!" for the company brochure. Meaningless, 'cuz we only used two or three, but it sounded impressive.
 
smartcooky said:
Oh dear. This video does not say what you claim it says

Please try harder next time
Click to expand...

I love Jim Braude (had no idea how to spell his name before now).

He asked pointed questions. She answered reasonably. I don't quite agree that, because her parents suffered discrimination from her father's family, she quite is a minority, but it's not a totally stupid point.

Say, has anyone in modern politics stretched the truth? I can forgive her this. In fact, I'm not a particular fan (she's a wee bit liberal for my tastes) but I intend to vote for her, just because we need an opposition in the Senate. I know my vote doesn't matter -- she's bound to win her race -- but it's a matter of expression that is important to me lately.

I honestly voted only once before 2016. The spectre of Trump prompted me to voice my opposition, for all the good it did.
 
acbytesla said:
I agree and maybe disagree to a point. Those boxes aren't necessarily be used to make specific decisions in hiring, but to inform the country about ethnicity issues in general.

Without them, how can we understand if we are making progress or not in achieving a color-blind society?

I grew up during the fight for Civil Rights in the 60s. We've come a long way. But I worked in high tech sales for 30 years. Working with hundreds of other sales reps as well as that many software and hardware engineers as well as high tech customers. And I can remember only a single African American working in one of those jobs. Something is wrong. I'm not saying that the employers didn't hire because of race, just that there were almost no non-caucasian or non-asians.

Either were not teaching them well or we're discriminating in our hiring practices.
Click to expand...

You are hitting on exactly the primary reason the boxes exist - to monitor for discrimination.

Like it or not, the bias does exist. Proven, repeatedly. People will be biased against names that appear African American. Generally subconsciously, yet they do. Studies have shown that unconscious bias persists. And traditional heavy handed approaches to combat it generally backfire and new steps are needed.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
From going to, 'My Mom was a Native American and had to elope because of the racist parents-in-law', 'Grandpa had high cheekbones' and ticking Harvard boxes as an ethnic minority needing the benefit of positive discrimination, she changed her story to some vague sixth to tenth generation individual of whom no-one knows the name or tribe, or indeed whether or not he or she is actually Hispanic.


Surprise, surprise! Lo and behold! That's what the DNA test came back with.
Click to expand...

The quoted part (yours - in quotation marks) is a lie. Just sayin'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom